migrate_context_files

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the conversion and preservation behavior, but it does not mention the default dryRun=true behavior, backup creation, or potential overwriting of existing context files. These are partially covered by the schema's parameter descriptions but not surfaced in the main description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the second sentence clarifies the specific outcomes.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has a moderate complexity with four parameters, an enum, and no output schema. The description gives the core purpose and conversions, but lacks details on return values, side effects, verification steps, or when to use this migration tool versus other context-related tools. It is minimally sufficient but not richly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by naming project_context.md and branch-specific contexts, which helps clarify the migrationStrategy parameter, but does not add substantial meaning beyond the parameter descriptions already present.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Migrate') and resource ('existing context files') and clearly states the destination system and conversion behavior ('Converts main/master contexts to project_context.md and preserves branch-specific contexts'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_context_file or read_project_context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies its use case: when you want to migrate existing context files to the Smart Hybrid Context System. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.